judgesonmerit.org

Paul Carpenter’s commentary in the Allentown Morning Call highlights a major problem inherent in electing judges — the money problem.  Carpenter focuses on reactions to a recent post-campaign solicitation on behalf of Judge-elect Doug Reichley.  In Pennsylvania, judicial campaigns can continue to raise funds following the election, but only for a limited time.  This prompted a solicitation letter, from two lawyers on behalf of the Reichley campaign, to all 700 lawyers in Lehigh County requesting donations of $100 to help retire the campaign’s debt.

Carpenter noted that Reichley claimed he would not be influenced by campaign contributions, but, Carpenter observed:

Those who cannot see into Reichley’s heart, however, might fret over which lawyers acceded to the demands and which ones didn’t. Also, suppose you have a lawyer who paid the $100 but the other side has one who paid significantly more.

In your mind, maybe there are echoes of the judicial scandals in Luzerne County, or a few in Lehigh County, or even at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court level. Maybe you feel you’d better shop for a lawyer who knows how to play ball.

Barry Kauffman, Executive Director of Common Cause, noted that “We shouldn’t have people going into court wondering if the other side has made contributions to that judge.”  He further explained that the only way to avoid that is Merit Selection.

We agree that Merit Selection is the way to solve the money problem — simply put, it gets judges out of the fundraising business. No longer would anyone have to worry whether the litigant or lawyer on the opposing side of the case had contributed to the judge’s campaign and what effect that might have.  That would be a very positive change for Pennsylvania.

Paul Carpenter of the Allentown Morning Call devoted his weekend column to a call for Merit Selection.  He reasons that the role of money in the judicial election process poisons the judicial system:

The problem should be obvious to anyone. A child in grade school can see why there’s a conflict if a judge in a position to rule on a legal dispute takes money from somebody with a vital financial interest in that case.

Carpenter spoke with PMC’s Lynn Marks:

”Pennsylvanians should not take pride in leading the nation in spending for judicial elections,” Marks told me. ”Each dollar raised and spent raises yet another doubt in voters’ minds about whether or not justice is for sale.”

Carpenter agreed, arguing “How is it possible for a judicial candidate with a shred of integrity to accept. . . money . . .  [from]  lawyers, law firms and lobbyists with ties to law firms having business before the Supreme Court.”

Unfortunately, under our current system of electing judges, these contributions are legal.  And, the judges are not required to recuse from cases involving campaign contributors.  This all leads the public to be concerned about the influence of money on judicial decisions.

Carpenter argues that the money problem causes a “stench” in our courts.  He urges reform:

That stench can be ended only one way — the merit selection of appellate judges, instead of letting their elections depend on millions of dollars in ”contributions” from lawyers and others with a stake in how these courts rule.

We hope the legislature will begin the process that will let Pennsylvanians decide how to address the problems caused by money in judicial elections.

Paul Carpenter of the Allentown Morning Call urges Pennsylvania voters to demand reform in the wake of this week’s judicial elections. Carpenter decries the tight control by the two major political parties over the judicial election process.  He also identifies the critical issue of money in judicial elections:

I am. . .  troubled by the main source of funding for virtually all judicial candidates in the two-party system. What sort of judges are we likely to have if they take most of their campaign funding from the very lawyers who plan to argue cases before them?

Carpenter notes that change will only come if the voters get angry and demand it. And he challenges the voters to do so:

If average citizens want to similarly flex muscles to bring reforms. . . they need to get just as angry and be just as vocal as they were in the pay raise scandal. . . .

People need to start demanding a shift to the merit selection of appellate judges, vowing to vote against any legislator who fails to work toward that goal.

Legislation is pending in both houses of the legislature to implement a Merit Selection system for the three statewide appellate courts.  Clearly, confidence in the current judicial elections system is low, as fewer voters than in past years turned out to vote this week.

Pennsylvanians should make their voices heard. As Carpenter notes, that’s the only way we will achieve much needed reform.

Paul Capenter of the Allentown Morning Call devoted yesterday’s column to a recap of the judicial scandals in Luzerne County.  Carpenter has strong words for the Pennsylvania judicial system and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in particular:

The appellate system is a comedy routine over which presides the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which, among its other scandals, did everything but back-flips to accommodate the crimes of two Luzerne County judges, who took $2.6 million in payoffs to throw hundreds of juveniles into a commercial juvie jail on flimsy grounds.

Carpenter updates his readers on the continuing investigation in Luzerne County and how various other cases are getting reexamined.  He concludes with a thought about one factor contributing to problems in the judicial system — judicial elections:

Someday, all these exciting episodes will end, probably when Pennsylvania enacts merit selection for appellate court judges — instead of letting party bosses pick judicial candidates. Then we’ll have to go back to watching Jerry Springer.